File talk:Alpha Beta Quadrant Overview star chart.jpg
From: Vulcan (star) What justification is there for taking all these locations (not just Vulcan but ‎Andoria, ‎Coridan, Risa, Organia,...) and assuming they're not the known locations but stars with the same name? -- Capricorn (talk) 23:28, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :A lot of them have alternates, for example Risa (Epsilon Ceti). Epsilon Ceti is clearly a stellar designation, strongly implying that all the points are star names. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:32, October 30, 2017 (UTC) ::Or that the planet/important landmark comes first and than its star in brackets. 23:43, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :That doesn't explain labels like Gamma Hromi. Or Ramatis, when the important planet is Ramatis III. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:46, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :::I have the Star Trek: Star Charts, upon which the star chart seen in the episode is based. The chart, with slight modifications, like some words dropped or stars omitted, is a copy of pp. 62-63. Other than the outposts, starbases, and Rura Penthe, which is regarded as a planetoid/rogue planet, the chart depicts the locations of stars. This is confirmed by the "Key to Charts" on p. 96 of the book.--Memphis77 (talk) 23:52, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :::One other thing, you might be wondering about the size of the stars, why some are bigger or why some are smaller? This has to do with the magnitude of the stars. The larger the size, the brighter the star is. Again, from p. 96 of the source mentioned above.--Memphis77 (talk) 23:56, October 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::According to the key of charts, the labels aren't stars, but star systems. But all in all it's a bit confusing, because the labels are futher seperated into categories like "UFP members" (which by definition can only be planets) and "Uninhabited" (which only makes sense if planets are meant). The brackets are "Alternate names or Affiliations". ( 00:09, October 31, 2017 (UTC)) :::Yep, it is confusing. When I was doing the pages, it came to me in the cases where there is no question, how confusing it must be to live in the Star Trek universe. We have systems where there is a star, a system, and a planet with the same name, like Alpha Centauri. The only way to know which is which is by context. Then, there is the case of Andor/Andoria. What a mess!! The question becomes, how would the average audience member, not a person immersed in the universe, interpret the chart? I believe they would interpret the labels as the names of the stars. This is the perspective I worked from when doing the pages.--Memphis77 (talk) 00:30, October 31, 2017 (UTC) But p. 96 of the Star Charts wasn't seen on screen, and in fact nothing in the Star Charts has been made canon by this, only the derived map as seen. Extra context provided only by the Star Charts shouldn't really figure in our logic. Here's an alternative approach, just a proposal. Given that we know that some of the stuff on the map aren't stars, and there's no legend establishing stuff as stars (on screen), how about instead of asuming that all of them must be stars just taking them as stellar objects of interest. When you see Vulcan, you asume that's a listing of the planet Vulcan, when you see new places like Beta Rigel you'd asume that's some place called Beta Rigel (of unknown nature), when you see Risa (Epsilon Ceti) you'd asume that's the Risa we know and love with an asociated star, when you see Qo'nos (Kronos, Kling), you'd asume that's the Klingon homeworld with what appear to be alternate names), when you see Ramatis you'd asume that's an object related to the Ramatis III we already known, and so on - There's no one approach (like calling them all stars or star systems) that is going to work for every object, but caution with a dash of common sense will get you very far. Doesn't that make more sense? I mean, that's kinda how we've handled every other map thus far, plenty of planet articles note that their name was spotted on a map. And I know the frustration of working with this kind of stuff btw, I've been there. But ultimately there's no squaring these circles even if there logically from an in-universe perspective maybe should be, you can only work with what you're given. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:40, October 31, 2017 (UTC) :::I spent many hours on writing these pages. I do not look forward to revisiting them for a while. If there is any page you have a disagreement with, there are options for you to pursue in getting the page changed to your satisfaction. Peace.--Memphis77 (talk) 00:51, October 31, 2017 (UTC) :Capricorn, how is all of that assuming better than the obvious interpretation that the dots are stars and their labels are the stars' names? And if you want common sense, nobody would ever make a map like that where the same symbols and typography can mean all sorts of different things. -- UncertainError (talk) 00:55, October 31, 2017 (UTC) @UncertainError: I've tried to give a lot of examples because there's a lot of cases and they're already inconsistent in what the symbols and typography mean to begin with, but personally I don't see that much real assuming in them. The logic basically boils down to : don't asume anything about a location, unless there's a specific reason to because of something we already knew about it. @Memphis: Please don't take this the wrong way, but revisiting large amounts of pages kinda is something that might happen every now and then when your process is to make a determination and then change hundreds and hundreds of pages based on that over a very short period. That being said, in this case there's not that much that I would have done differently (Basically just asume that when the map says something like Vulcan or Krios, that's a reference to the object we already know, which in practice would mean putting up a manageable number of pages up for a merge I suppose, and change an equally manegeable amount of categories from star to Astronomical object). And nor is this about an expectation of mine for you to put in work to "fix" stuff according to my personal vision. (also if your concern is simply that you don't want to revisit the pages, don't worry, I'll do it. Just not as fast :p) You say there's options for me to persue, but well, this talk page, that's the option - I'm not some dictatorial admin, all I can do is can state my case and see if other people think it makes sense. But this is the point where things start to get difficult for me. You're disengaging, vaguely suggesting I should just do whatever, without your input. Maybe I should mirror your approach by admitting this: I genuinely don't know how to handle that, it seems to break the consensus seeking model. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:58, October 31, 2017 (UTC) :The map is completely consistent with all the circles being stars and the cap label beside them the names of those stars (I would argue that to be clear authorial intent). There's not a single one of those labels that absolutely cannot be the name of a star. I see no sense in an interpretation where one circle named "Krios" refers to the planet (the important bit of canon) and another circle is named "Ramatis" instead of "Ramatis III" (the important bit of canon) for some mysterious reason. I won't comment on this further; unfortunately I can't see us agreeing on this. -- UncertainError (talk) 03:09, October 31, 2017 (UTC) That's the standard? They're to be treated differently from other maps because none can absolutely not be a star? Fine, as long as Sherman's planet can be the name of Sherman's planet's star. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:02, October 31, 2017 (UTC) Solution So in reviewing the list of these: Andoria (star), Khitomer, Organia, Orion, Praxis, Qo'noS, Vulcan ...it seems like all should probably be moved, but it seems that perhaps in the case of Vulcan and Andoria, there might be merit to keep them or merge them into existing articles that have always skirted the facts. * A picture of a star chart supposedly used for Star Trek: Discovery was tweeted by Ted Sullivan on November 28, 2017. According to this map, the star Andorra (??) was also known as either Procyon or Alpha Canis Minoris. If indeed this is true, then for what reason can it not be moved to either Andorra (is that right, or an autocorrect to the country?) or to up the status of Procyon?; which was already mentioned in canon from comparable sources. * A picture of a star chart supposedly used for was tweeted by Ted Sullivan on November 28, 2017. According to this map, the star Vulcan was also known as 40 Eridani A. https://twitter.com/karterhol/status/935515326346874880 I say this because these last two points were added after the merge suggestion was added. --Alan (talk) 03:38, October 7, 2018 (UTC) :Moved to where?--Memphis77 (talk) 03:41, October 7, 2018 (UTC) To where they are being suggested to be moved. --Alan (talk) 03:48, October 7, 2018 (UTC) :My opinion - I am in agreement with most of these. The one I have an issue with is Praxis. Why can't there be two locations named Praxis? After this, maybe we should revisit the other locations. The chart seen in the twitter account was never seen in the episodes. I speculate that they modified the chart and removed things which conflicted with the period, such as the mention of V'Ger, before making a final version which was seen in the episodes.--Memphis77 (talk) 04:06, October 7, 2018 (UTC) ::There are actually more of these than the ones tagged. Some of the content of these should go to unnamed stars, but the reference from this chart should definitely be to the planets. - 09:07, October 7, 2018 (UTC) :I have been adding merge with template and rename to template to logical chocies. I have made changes to the pages which have been suggested for renaming, for consistency. Some notes: :* Orion: This could be an example of a planet and a star having the same name, like the planets and having the same name as their primaries. This Orion, which is it, a planet or a star? :* For places like Risa (Epsilon Ceti), if we merge the page with the planet Risa page, do we create a separate page for Epsilon Ceti? Or do we make a note of it in the bginfo? This is one of a number of examples which fall into this category. :* Praxis is seen as an unique location southwest of Qo'noS. Can we have room for two locations with the same name? :* Merge with articles (adding to those above): Ajilon, Ardana (star), Ba'ku, Coridan (star), Deneva (star), Galorndon Core, H'atoria, Halee, Krios, Mempa, Morska, Pheben, Qu'Vat, Risa (star), Ty'Gokor, Valt :* Rename to articles: Amar, B'Moth, Balduk, Gasko, Gorath (star), Iccobar, Iconia, No'Mat (star), Son'a, Tarlac, Xarantine (star) :--Memphis77 (talk) 12:20, October 7, 2018 (UTC) So, am I right in the case of Vulcan and Andor(i)a and that the bginfo shows the image with alternate names, so that we have a special situation that would validate Procyon and 40 Eridani A as their true counterparts? If so, are there other examples from the same source https://twitter.com/karterhol/status/935515326346874880? --Alan (talk) 13:37, October 7, 2018 (UTC) :The person who started us down this rabbit hole, Capricorn, would argue that this is not validation, as this information only appeared in the books and, ultimately, unused background graphics and not in the episodes. As for myself, I consider these as my babies. I spent alot of time in writing them and maintaining them when I could, only to have their existence questioned by Capricorn. After much thought, I brought the articles as far along I could to be in alignment with her vision of the site. Being consistent with this vision, I have to agree with her. They are not validation.--Memphis77 (talk) 05:38, October 8, 2018 (UTC) Two things, what actually appeared on screen (in terms of legible and illegible text?) only? Is it just what is listed on the image link/list Archduk posted? Also, it seems both "Morska (star)" and Morska system were created on this information, while the former was merged, was the latter actually identified by name or was it just "Morska" on the map? --Alan (talk) 13:44, October 8, 2018 (UTC) :This is from watching (2:49 to 2:53): :*At 2:48, we see a close-up of the map, in the area around Ramatis. The location of Ramatis is represented by a circle with two half circles surrounding it. According to the book, this arrangement of parts is symbolic for a trinary system This is not stated in the episode. Gamma Hromi is arranged in the same way. Looking at some of the other locations, the symbols which tell the reader how many stars are in a system are used on this map - Gamma Hromi (4 stars), Acamar (3 stars), Regulus (3 stars), and so on. :*At 2:49, we see the location Morska, which is represented by the red Klingon symbol. :*At 2:50, this is the last time where the map's location names are legible. After this, the letters of the white words run into each other and become blurry. :Recognizing the source material, which was later confirmed by the production staff, I went to the pages in the Star Trek: Star Charts''book and was able to identify the other locations. I made an erroneous decision, and identfied them as stars, when they were actually solar systems, with a small number being named planets - Sherman's Planet and Rura Penthe. For Vulcan and Andoria, originally, these bodies were given the alternate names of 40 Eridani and Procyon, respectively. This information was omitted from the version of the chart seen in the episode. :As for the second chart, again, I recognized the source material, from which I could draw for the articles. However, much of it is not readable. What is readable is the words in red. :Writing these words, and looking at the matter, in hindsight I have come to a realization. There is a quote I remember from the movie "Jurassic Park": ''"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."--Memphis77 (talk) 14:44, October 8, 2018 (UTC) Okay, this makes a little more sense. I've neither seen the episodes in question nor own the book in question, I've simply glanced at the chart, so that's why I'm asking so many questions. Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but it seems this map falls into the same category as this, et al., which I'm sure was legible on screen; so both legible and illegible terms should be acceptable as transcribed from the map using the Star Charts book, as a cross-check, as long as things edited out on the on-screen map aren't being readded from the book. Final question, I see some of them are listed with alternate astronomical names Deneva, Coridan, Ardana, etc. I was going to hold on merging those that had parenthesized names, because you said that that information was omitted from the screen version of the map for Andoria and Vulcan, but I wasn't sure if any of those other alternate names appeared on the map on screen that weren't edited out? --Alan (talk) 14:59, October 8, 2018 (UTC) :The other alternate names appeared on the charts seen in the episodes.--Memphis77 (talk) 15:06, October 8, 2018 (UTC) If the following are legitimate alternate names known to be present on the on-screen map, than that would mean that these are stars after all: * Ardana, also known as Rasalas and Mu Leonis * Coridan, also known as Chi1 Orionis * Deneva, also known as Kappa Fornacis * Gorath, also known as Theta Hydrae * No'Mat, also known as Omicron Leonis * Risa, also known as Epsilon Ceti * Xarantine, also known as Zeta Leporis Also, is there any reason why: * Ba'ku (star), cannot be the actual name of the Ba'ku planet? * Iconia (star), cannot be merged with Iconia? * Qu'Vat (star), cannot be the actual name of the planet that the Qu'Vat Colony is on? * Tellun (star), cannot be merged with Tellun system? And * Andoria is not Procyon or Alpha Canis Minoris... * Vulcan is not 40 Eridani A... --Alan (talk) 19:23, October 8, 2018 (UTC) :I can see an argument being made in the case of the locations in the first list that the planet is named first, then in parenthesis the name of the system where these planets are located. In none of the cases is the star or system named in the canon before Discovery. :Ba'ku and Iconia could be merged with the planets. On Qu'Vat, I will give an example which is a counter to your question. Benicia Colony is located on Benecia. There are others in the canon. As for Tellun, it will require one hell of a rationalization. Tellun (star) is linked through the use of parenthesis with Elas and Troyius. The other Tellun is identified as a prison planet where people can walk on the surface. How these two can be reconciled I leave that to you. :About Vulcan and Andoria, there is nothinng on the star chart maps seen in the episodes which links thme to 40 Eridani A and Procyon, respectively.--Memphis77 (talk) 20:14, October 8, 2018 (UTC) Here's what's left: * Andoria (star): this is somewhat connected to what's going on here. * Ardana (star) (Rasalas, Mu Leonis) * Coridan (star) (Chi1 Orionis) * Deneva (star) (Kappa Fornacis) * Gorath (star) (Theta Hydrae) * No'Mat (star) (Omicron Leonis) * Risa (star) (Epsilon Ceti) * Xarantine (star) (Zeta Leporis) I noticed a few more on the opposite of this page that don't have qualifiers that have "AKA"'s attached to them. I think it would be important to figure out what the parenthesized, stars (planets)/planets (stars) – some Jouret (New Providence) are apparently stars?/colonies. --Alan (talk) 21:50, October 8, 2018 (UTC) Just trying to close this out. I think it's fair to say one of two things: that any that have an alternate stellar name are indeed stars, or if not, are the planets (and their parenthesized stars). If, or once, this can be better determined, the linked term should be moved to the alternate star name rather than to the planet the name mimics. --Alan (talk) 14:37, November 6, 2018 (UTC) About Praxis moved from user talk:Gvsualan This might come up in the future. Someone will ask, if they have seen the chart in the episode, how is the location Praxis and the moon Praxis connected, as the latter is not shown as being at the same spot as Qo'noS? The location Praxis is to the left of and above the Qo'noS system. Here is a picture of the chart, showing the location of Praxis. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/00/13/8c/00138c04702c1d20e07b74f210e14f55.jpg This will need to be addressed at some point.--Memphis77 (talk) 18:55, October 8, 2018 (UTC) FYI, the chart above is the source material for the charts seen in the episodes. It is different to the original in that some locations have been moved to the Alpha Quadrant, the alternate names do not appear next to Vulcan and Andoria, and the RNZ, along with the route of the Enterprise-A in 2293 and V'Ger in 2271 have been omitted. In all other ways, the chart is the same.--Memphis77 (talk) 19:01, October 8, 2018 (UTC) legibility Is there a better picture of the map? Where is Earth? Alysdexia (talk) 08:22, October 15, 2019 (UTC) :There's no better picture of the official map, but there's a pretty good reproduction going around, see here. Iirc it does have one or two minor issues, typos and such, so don't edit the wiki based solely on that one -- Capricorn (talk) 17:06, October 15, 2019 (UTC) Andoria = Procyon, confirmed See , top left in the first image. Vulcan is labeled "Vulcan (40 Eridani)", Andoria is labeled "Andoria (Procyon, Alpha Canis Minoris)".- Mitchz95 (talk) 04:10, January 14, 2020 (UTC) :That's not the same map as this one though :) -- Capricorn (talk) 10:51, January 14, 2020 (UTC) ::Not the exact same one, but it was used in the show. The tweet comes from Ted Sullivan, one of the writers and producers. And Procyon is already listed as the center of the Andorian system. - Mitchz95 (talk) 14:58, January 14, 2020 (UTC) :I was just saying you posted on the wrong page, that's all. Although it also has to be said that the pages you link to don't cite that claim to an episode. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:55, January 15, 2020 (UTC)